Stem cell (il)literacy
Posted by Jesse Reynolds November 14, 2006
Biopolitical Times
I look forward to writing on topics other than stem cell research and the midterm elections, but here is one more item. An article reporting the results of Missouri's Amendment 2 said that "Actually, early stem cells come from microscopic fertilized eggs and, if implanted in a woman's uterus, develop into specific tissues before the developing human becomes a fetus."
This sentence conflates the potential of embryonic stem cells and fertilized eggs. Researchers hope that the former, if implanted in a degenerated part of the body, will form various tissue types and potentially cure the degeneration. A fertilized egg is the first stage of an embryo, which if implanted in a women's uterus, develops into a fetus and then a new human.
These topics can be a bit confusing, and many advocates on both sides of the polarized debate have consciously worked to reshape the language. The mistakes made by most writers are due to the learning curve and the linguistic machinations of interested parties. Regardless of the cause, the public is too often left more confused than before.
This sentence conflates the potential of embryonic stem cells and fertilized eggs. Researchers hope that the former, if implanted in a degenerated part of the body, will form various tissue types and potentially cure the degeneration. A fertilized egg is the first stage of an embryo, which if implanted in a women's uterus, develops into a fetus and then a new human.
These topics can be a bit confusing, and many advocates on both sides of the polarized debate have consciously worked to reshape the language. The mistakes made by most writers are due to the learning curve and the linguistic machinations of interested parties. Regardless of the cause, the public is too often left more confused than before.
.jpg){kind=link}